The Beatles' drug experimentation has been romanticized over the years and too often spun in positive light as a creating force behind their music. The truth of the matter is, as apparently pointed out in this book, that drugs were ultimately a destructive force as it ruined their relationships and played a significant role in the dissolution of the band. This is one I'll be getting a copy of. Thanks for the review.
Hey Paul, you'll really love this book. Like much of the myth-busting perspectives out there, this book brings everything together in one place, which allows for proper evaluation. Please use the link in my description to buy the book when you are ready. I just watched your video with Larry tonight - loved it.
@Ross Smith That could be, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but there was more than one thing that caused the breakup. I'm not sure that in 1970 the difference in "musical direction" was a huge factor. I've never heard any of the four state that as a reason. Also consider that "musical differences" is often cited as a reason for band break ups or prominent members departing. More often than not that reason is found to be a cover for deeper issues. It is an interesting thought, for sure, though.
From everything I gather reading a lot and watching a lot of docs and interviews they were just done as a band regardless. They did accomplish an incredible amount of material but after time were not really working well together and were doing better with solo stuff. I don't blame Yoko either but I think John felt Paul was taking over too much and just didn't want to deal with it anymore. Both Ringo and George had already quit the band earlier as well because they were sick of it and didn't feel needed.
Not to mention times were a lot different by the end then it was when they were 4 kids sharing a tiny room in some bar in Hamburg. They were growing apart regardless of drugs.
Oh come on ... drugs didn’t ruin their relationship - many other factors did. Their drug of choice was cannabis and it surely didn’t harm their creativity. They dabbled in LSD but not when they were actively making music (how could they have?).
You know, the sad thing is that their best work was done while they were using, and as a musician of 40 years, yet sober for the last 20,( I'm not glorifying drugs), they ruined my health), I have lost the songwriting ability that used to come naturally, and yet blew 2 major label deals when they found out I was using Heroin. However, I must say that my years of heroin, and LSD use were my most musically productive, but caused a brush with insanity before I said I'd had enough, and have been 100% sober since 2002, not even alcohol! Thanks for your channel, I decided I would be Paul Macartney at 7, and have loved the Beatles my entire life! Peace & Love, Keith In Richmond VA
I'm happy to hear of your sobriety. It seems that excess over time never helps musicians keep their edge, though the edge can certainly be enhanced. Thanks for the substantive comment, Keith!
Saying their best work was done while using is strictly an opinion. Having said that, I'm also a recovering addict, and it's the opposite for me: I have been much more creative and productive in sobriety than I ever was high or drunk. I am happy for your sobriety, keep going, and God bless 🙂
@@txmystic: Magical Mystery Tour WAS a brilliant idea, it was the execution that was inferior because they were so intent on doing everything themselves. But on the other hand I wonder even if they had surrendered the writing and producing to others in an attempt to make it more commercially palatable if it would've turned out as good as it was. Frankly, I unapologetically like MMT just the way it is, and the album was genius, (as was usual for the Beatles anyway).
11:52 John gets together with Yoko and the reverberation of this event echoes so intensely through the fabric of spacetime that the color saturation of the video itself changed...trippy...
wow indeed wow those two trips changed the course of his life, times and music... truly ....John seems to always have been the one to "suffer fools" in that way he was not like the rest of the band....George would never have been mates with blatent charletons like Yoko & Magic Alex and it was the latter who convinced John that george's mate 'Mr.Yogi" was a baddie!
Missed The Byrds and especially David Crosby meetings with the Beatles. I have seen pictures - was before 1967.Read the Byrds history and you will see maybe they were a bigger influence and possibly suppliers. Cocaine was more a US drug
"who put all those things in your head?" that is a good story. I remember Lennon talking to Rolling Stone about that party inspiring 'She said she said' .John found Fonda's remarks unpleasant, but a great song was born out of it.
I learn something new everytime I see one of your videos man. I truly appreciate your love for The Beatles. I love finding like minded people who are just as obsessed.
One thing not mentioned but that is very clear from reading Lewishons book is that the culture of post-war England, particularly bombed out Liverpool was that children began drinking, rather heavily, at family gatherings and otherwise, and also smoked alot at an early age. The postwar era in Liverpool was so depressing that almost everyone, it seems, was either an alcoholic or binge-drinker during this time and that included all 4 Beatles.
Yes, the post war atmosphere was pervasive at that time and seems the opposite of what was going on in America post WWII. I wonder how American teen measure up to Liverpool teens with regard to alcohol during that time. Thanks for the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Every one liked to drink beer or whatever in Liverpool back in the day the pubs were rocking I can tell you it was a great drinking town well I am Irish mind you Irish people are fond of coke and weed at the moment ✌️💚🇮🇪
This is an excellent book. Most of the stories in it are known by most fans BUT never before has all the information been presented in such a way as to make the common thread running through the bands existence so obvious.
I remember playing stickball with friends on the streets of West Harlem in 1967 when a kid yelled from his window that 2 of The Rolling Stones were just busted for drugs. We all looked at each other disappointed and confused. An older kid said All the groups do that shit" we then continued playing but at 12 years old in 67 I was highly skeptical. Surely not The Beatles too!! Lol
Matt - Thanks for your ongoing, in-depth analyses of The Beatles along with so many other less famous and less documented bands. Truly a joy to see new content from you each time! In a reply to another viewer’s comment you point out that the effect that drugs have varies from person to person. That’s absolutely true - somewhat obvious but certainly important to point out. I reflect on the devastating effect that hallucinogenics had on someone as sensitive and fragile as Brian Wilson along with many other artists who ended up being drug casualties. It’s absolutely amazing that Brian is still with us (and that he survived both of his brothers) and how much truly excellent music he’s produced over these many years. As you also point out, drugs definitely played a role in the evolution of so much of The Beatles music (and others), but there was definitely a heavy price to be paid. Thanks again - truly enjoy your work!
The Dylan/Beatles drug revelations of the 60s influenced us back then to experiment with drugs to get on the same wavelength as the artist...the change came and we music lovers have never been the same..great job my friend!!!
Matt, Another Set of Compelling Insights Into The Beatles. Gotta Read This Book. By the way, I’m Committing 2022-2023 to Writing My Book, Unrelated to The Beatles, Although Who Knows What’s Gonna Come Out of My Head In the End. Don’t Buy the Notion (by Some) That the Heavy Drug Years Were the Most Creatively Productive for Paul. McCartney Was Always a Prolific Music Composer. There is Something to Be Said, in a Separate Discussion, About How Creativity Wanes With Most Great Artists.
I touched upon the creative muse being most vibrant in younger songwriters. I've gotten some guff from McCartney lovers, some of whom think his current music is as good as his 1970s stuff. I may expand on this in future videos. Good luck with the book!
Finally a new Pop Goes the 60s! I was going through withdrawals.. Anyway, a great video as always Matt. Keep em coming. I agree with George, marijuana definitely enhances the enjoyment of music. Legal here in Canada for about 2 years and society hasn't collapsed.
yeah. in 2016, we in Massachusetts voted it in, and it wasn't even close. I think we won by a million votes. so, in '17 it became legal, 80 years after the Feds outlawed it in '37, w/ a propaganda campaign that was really a disgrace. 80 fucking years!! they'd learned nothing from the gigantic failure of prohibition. anyone who's seen 'COPS reloaded' (very entertaining reality TV), knows that the Libertarians are right. all illicit drugs should be available like booze is.
@@mark9058 that is as it should be. and it won't ever change. driving impaired is a danger to all of us. but booze affects your spatial view in a bad way. as far as legalization, the Feds apparently still can bust you if you grow more than 7 plants, but I haven't heard lately, about anyone getting busted for that. even the Feds are coming around. when they can tax you, they love it.
According to Chris O'Dell the seventies were far crazier in terms of drug taking than the sixties and all four seem to have become drug casualties during this time - including Paul who mentions excessive cocaine use which Linda helped him put a stop to.
It makes perfect sense, really. When they were a tight-knit gang of four in the Sixties, they always had three other Beatles (five if you include Derek Taylor and Neil Aspinall) to call their bluff in the event that it became a problem. After the break-up, they drifted into their own circles and, naturally, those circles are going to contain a certain number of hangers on, "yes-men," and enablers. By no means am I against drug use of any kind, but it's better to do that kind of thing around true friends - especially those whose careers just so happen depend on you. As stifling as it may appear to be, there's a certain freedom to be found in that type of familiar atmosphere. Healthy limitations imposed by circumstance, if you will.
This was certainly the situation in society in England generally. In the 60s a few took drugs and they were romanticised. By the 70s drugs such as heroin, cocaine and LSD were easier to get. The dark side appeared. Addiction, hepatitis and other infections from contaminated shared needles. Death, ODs
I didn't know Paul was big into coke. With the kids & farm & all? I thought he was smoking pot & raising & sheering sheep 🐑🐏 (in the heart of the country)..🏕️ I only recently found out that George was using a lot in the seventies. That explains why he looked so awful. Later, though, I guess he cleaned up & looked pure gorgeous. 😍😗 I recently heard a doctor say that the knife attack in his home, caused his life to be shortened. He had part of one lung removed a few years earlier & the other one collapsed from the attack. It had a huge negative impact on him & Olivia. After being a cautious recluse to avoid the crazies -- one goes right into his house /castle. How bizarre! 🙀 Love to George 💗🌼🥰🌞📿🎸👨🌾. Here comes the sun.... 🌤️ 💖🌄 🎶 🌅🏵️🌱 ☀️🍎💛
I’m sure it was George who told the story about the time when Ray Charles and his band played in Liverpool and one of the locals had commented that Charles must be really stingy about paying his band as two band members had been seen in the gents toilets ‘forced’ to share the same cigarette between them 😀
Great review Matt. I grew up with The Beatles and never having taken drugs myself maybe reading the book would shatter my nieve outlook! I was just a kid enjoying their music.
Wow Matt, very well put together, no judgement just how it was. As a boy I was told the sixties offered a chance for real change, or that was how it was pitched in the ads, as an adult I wondered if the phenomenon of the baby boom generation was squandered by drugs. It would be naïve, on my part, to think that The Beatles drug use didn't have a creative boost to their music, but still who can say. I heard George Harrison in an interview that he went to San Francisco during the summer of love, and what he saw reminded him of the bowery, later saying he viewed some LSD through a microscope and it looked like pieces of rope, and decided not to put that in himself. He seemed to have had a clear understanding that the drugs weren't taking them anywhere he wanted to go. Or at least that is how I remember it. At some point you have to wonder about Apple, and what it started out to be, and what it could have accomplished with free thinking clear headed leadership, perhaps silicon valley would have been in Great Britain. Great job Matt.
Sounds like a great read. I understand the first cannabis experience (prior to Zim) had the cannabis sprinkled into a hand rolled tobacco cigarette. I've wondered if hashish. was ever on the menu. The cocaine available in 1967 was of the liquid variety. I thought Paul's first trip was when he brought John back to his flat. After Johns infamous EMI rooftop stroll. Most musicians using H in 1968 were snorting (and vomiting) . Not injecting. You handled this topic/review professionally. No surprise their Matt Thank you for your diligence, , Great video, RNB
That was the official version of Paul's first acid trip, but he apparently took it (clandestinely) sometime in early 1966 (before the Revolver sessions). He declined taking it 1965, making him the odd man out.
c009, I have always thought the kerfuffle that left Macca off She Said She Said had a couple possibilities. The pressure to record 1 final track for Revolver,(it was their last possible day to record a final song). SSSS being a rhythmically challenging song may have given Paul some trouble nailing it down. Someone may have suggested that the songs storyline (when Paul didn't trip with J,G &R) might've ticked Paul off. Since George helped John arrange 3 song fragments into SSSS, it may've been suggested that George play the bass (as he had done on Taxman). Paul, being fed up with the attitudes coming from all sides said "Eff Off" and left the session. If the others knew he had already dosed, that blows my theory out of the water. Cheers, RNB
@@ricknbacker5626 Thanks for weighing in-you brought up some interesting points indeed. In fact, they do seem quite plausible. To be honest, I had, surprisingly, never thought about what the the actual cause of what went down between Paul and the others during the SSSS session. As John and George aren't around to divulge, only Paul knows (as well as Ringo?) and he has skirted around the issue in the past, downplaying it for whatever reason. But I think you are onto something-as Paul wasn't tripping with the others during the Peter Fonda incident, he didn't feel any particular closeness to SSSS in regard to the song's fodder and as a result, he wasn't too into it. Or perhaps John and George were ridiculing and giving him a hard way to during the session for not tripping with them the previous summer (or since then) and McCartney had had enough and split the session. Or something along those lines. Regarding Paul's Revolver song, GTGYIML, he always claimed that that was his "ode" to pot, but the lyrics suggest that it's about something much stronger than weed. And it seems that an "ode" to weed would have already been on their 'weed' album, Rubber Soul. For whatever reason, I think Paul did not want to let on to the others that he had tripped on LSD (also, the official 'first time' tripping with John in 1967 story makes for better copy as well as putting himself in a better light). It's peculiar that, although he was apparently 'apprehensive' about taking LSD for the almost supposedly two years after J and G's first trip, Paul had been regularly using coke for approximately half a year before his 'first' LSD trip.
This has nothing to do with the video but I just want to let you know that your channel is amazing. I just love the amount of detail you go into and all the analyses you do for each video. Thank you for this
Speaking of drugs, I saw you dropped a video and felt like the addict who just saw his best connection walk through the door! I am really hooked on your content...thanks for all you do!
Again let me congratulate you on a great presentation. Just my observation: at least two Beatles detested the “loveable mop top” image, but ironically, they believed they were somehow immune to the evils of heroin and coke. Mop tops couldn’t get addicted, right? All of them fell into an insidious trap and without Brian to bail them out in mid 1967, our lads embarked upon a number of failed projects that would destroy the group over a period of two years. The MMT failure. The trip to India. The Get Back film. Apple. The one factor that is consistent during these failed projects was drug use. As for the two prominent LSD trips, with Lennon, I don’t think they had much to do with his bizarre attraction to Yoko. Yoko began cultivating this relationship as early as 1966. The neck piece she gave John is prominent in photos in mid-1967. Further she is referenced twice in Sgt. Pepper. John’s driver says they were having an affair in 1967. Further Yoko shows up at the very first recording session following Brian’s death in which John and Paul are working on Fool on the Hill and Walrus. (Good timing Yoko!). Yoko is likewise present at the Bulldog sessions in early 1968, and John is trying to take her to India a few weeks later, but can’t manage it. The LSD trip(s) in April may be related to John’s call to Yoko, but more likely they were part of John’s attempt to deal with his inner turmoil and confusion relative to his domestic chaos and feelings of worthlessness. Yoko did not entice him with drugs as some have suggested. John was an emotional train wreck and she just happened to be at the station.
You do Gooden's book justice Matt. I know that some might shy away from this work in a misconception that it would merely be a tawdry recounting of a rock/pop band's drug deprivations. Much to our enjoyment and the advancement of Beatle's scholarship this is not the case at all, but instead it is an excellent description of both the substances and the context surrounding their use by the four. One thing that Gooden does not touch upon in detail is who exactly supplied them with their drugs. You make a superb point in that in the music business drugs will find you, but herion was something normally only be handled by serious organized crime. Not to be too prurient about it, but someone was supplying this circle in London with all they needed and it makes me think it might have been part of the Kray Brothers crime syndicate as they were the heavies at the time. As we know, drug supplies go hand in hand with some pretty rough criminals yet we don't hear much about that in this period. Wherever they might have obtained what they wanted/needed, frankly I am surprised that they were able to work creatively as long as they did. Ringo's addictions in the 70s I find to be the saddest. He has hinted at domestic violence and near existential struggles. In the Beatles years he just didn't seem to be a personality that would become chemically dependent...but that's the tragedy as it can happen to anyone.
Thank you, Neal. The heroin distribution in England and London specifically was from psychiatrists with support from the state, not organized crime - at least not in the 1960s. Psychiatrist Lady Isabella Frankau was notorious for giving out scripts of 10 grams each of heroin and cocaine for the equivalent of $3.50! People came from all over.The book reports that she dispensed 600,000 heroin tablets (100 kilos) in 1962 alone! The idea of giving out coke with the heroin is that the cocaine would "pick you up" and enable you to work a job and contribute to society. People would acquire a prescription and sell it on the streets. Lennon & Ono had a live in family that had the prescription which was eventually how they managed it. Interesting stuff.
@@popgoesthe60s52 If I remember correctly, James Taylor was Lennon's go-to guy (or one of them) for H. (See: one of the RUclips videos on JT's experiences with The Beatles).
Very interesting. The Dylan story has passed into legend, especially given that they mention it in the Anthology video. Goes to show that reality is more complex.
I seem to recall that in Anthology, the 3 explicitly mention that they had tried it before, but it wasn't effective, and Dylan had better stuff or something like that
As someone else mentioned in a comment, I'm not sure McCartney had had acid by the end of 1965. I read this book, based on your having mentioned it in another video. Thanx for the steer. The big revelation to me was about McCartney's cocaine use. It really does make sense as a factor in his super-productive period of 1966 and '67.
The December 13, 1965 LSD trip by McCartney is extensively discussed in this book. I think it was originally reported to have been December 1966, which may be where the confusion is. Thanks for watching!
@@popgoesthe60s52 I was under the impression Paul had not taken LSD until at least late 1966 or even sometime in 1967. He recalls himself being the only Beatle to not take acid, while the other three had done so. I think their 2nd trip was at LA in late '65 (?) - the famous Peter Fonda episode "I know what its like to be dead." Paul held out for a while - so I don't think it was Dec. '65 when he took it first.
@@Peter-qu3lv It was 12 December 1965, the final night of the British tour. There us quite a lot of information regarding this evening and the citation is Steve Turner's book, Beatles '66: The Revolutionary Year, where McCartney is quoted. John was present that evening (as was John Entwistle) but he went home early, leaving Tara Browne, Viv Prince and McCartney to go to Browne's house where they took it via sugar cubes in their tea. McCartney stayed the night.
Excellent as always. I was particularly fascinated by the fact that not only did drugs influence individual songs and writing style, but influenced the relative course of the productivity of the Beatles (Paul compared to John and George), as well as their eventual breakup. Thx!!!
Yes, it often hindered their creativity and essentially burned them out around '68, hence the Maharishi trip, as they were pretty burned. Also, according to Emerick's book, they were very different post- India and constantly high
I have always found it a bit ironic that the Maharishi trip, which was about finding inner peace and contentment, only seemed to divide the Beatles. Specifically, it seemed to bring John and George to a place where they felt connected to something else, but thereby less connected to the group.
Paul liked his weed big time. instead of junk and LSD, he chose a more creative-friendly drug. it got him arrested 3, 4 times, but back then it was scandalous. I still think 'LET IT BE' was at least partly an homage to the Cannabis plant.
great book, read a few weeks ago. I had known of almost all substances mentioned from previous books, but what stood out the most for me was how deep the Beatles were with the Predulin/speed....I knew about Hamburg but man they were lit to the gills on those things all the way to Help when they started hitting the ganj...quality book
Thanks for the excellent review. Related to your subject matter here, I imagine you may have also read "Beatles '66: The Revolutionary Year" by Steve Turner? If not, you may want to consider it. A chapter for each month of that year. A truly fascinating account of the many changes they went through individually, together, and the crowd they hung out with at the time, in particular McCartney. Extraordinary people in extraordinary times.
The connection between acid and the egos of George and John being 'unravelled' and Paul taking cocaine and having his sped up is good. But it you use the career of Elton John to trace the same influence of the White Powder on his musical output, you can easily detect the rise and fall of the effect of drugs and touring. So what was really going on? In the Let It Be tapes (January 1969) you can hear Paul saying, "I've been leading the group for two years, and I don't really want to do that." John has left and the rest are discussing Yoko and John. And I think that more or less makes sense. In January 1967 The Beatles were half-way through record Pepper, an album that should have included Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane. Paul was having his moment of awakening as a solo artist. This would be driven home the next year with the release of the first Apple single: Hey Jude. That single should have been on the White Album. It would have taken the same space as the druggy Revolution 9, and made the White Album the best double-LP in the album era. January 1969 sees Paul still at the helm of the group blasting out Get Back and Let it Be, while also recording Two Of Us-Every Brothers Style-with John. However by January 1969 it is also clear the George is having his renaissance as a solo artist, and his songs should have filled out the Let It Be album from its current, pithy, 35:10 minutes to a full 50-minute record. Or a second double album, why not? Later that year, Harrison made it official putting the best two songs on Abbey Road, except for that Long One... In the Long One, which McCartney went on to explore in his next two albums Ram(on) and Red Rose Speedway, we hear both the magic of John & Paul writing together their minute-plus rockers, and the band jamming together in the studio, providing the best 18 bars of guitar solos in the album rock era. Including the Ringo Starr solo moving across the two stereo Chanels like it never had done before on a Beatles record. But it was McCartney that had got them back into the studio, and who more or less 'soldiered on' in the process. Had Harrison been given more space in the albums, the concert he is hear saying he never wanted to do in the Let It Be tapes-the Concert for Bangla Desh-could have been the Beatles reunion. Following Bob Dylan, John and Paul could have come on stage and backed by all the other musicians they might have ripped through the Long One, laying claim to having laid down the best LP side of the album rock era.
Great comment, Car-O. I do believe had the Beatles been able to manage the break up more professionally, the Concert for Bangla Desh would have made sense for a farewell.
A huge part of what the Beatles did musically was attributable to their highly experimental and extremely creative approach. Their experimentation with altered states of consciousness gave us some of the most memorable music that they created. Those who criticize them for their experimentation with mind-altering substances would, no doubt, also criticize Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes), Oscar Wilde (The Importance of Being Earnest, The Picture of Dorian Gray), and Aldous Huxley (The Doors of Perception) for similar reasons. Another point worth making is that there is a growing body of scientific evidence (for example, research conducted at Johns Hopkins University) confirming Paul McCartney's point that consciousness-altering drugs and botanicals can have medically and psychologically beneficial properties.
I respect the fact you love the music and history of The Beatles as much as anyone, myself included. You deserve to have been born earlier in time so you could have watched Beatle history unfold in real time. 79 days before The Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan the first time, JFK was killed. The US had mourned for 78 days and was ready to embrace The Beatles and resume leading happy lives again; and JohnPaulGeorge&Ringo were a good reason to smile away, at least for Americans under 21. That was the climate of the country when they stepped onto the tarmac in NYC in early '64. A rock band NEVER got their picture on the front page of every paper in the nation. I was already hearing I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You 300 times a day on AM radio (FM wouldn't become big for 4 or 5 years) but that newspaper photo was the first time I saw what The Beatles looked like. All in all they seem like a well-timed phenomenon and a phenomenon they were. I wasn't even going to watch them on Ed Sullivan, but heard them from my bedroom and joined my family in the living room. You could just tell that somehow you'd witnessed a page of history turn before your very eyes. In 1968 when the Smother Brothers or Sullivan or some variety show played the video of Hey Jude one of my teachers the next day opened class with, "Did anyone see The Beatles on TV last night?" Of course all of us kids saw it and I forget what class she taught but we had a Beatles discussion hour that day in lieu of a lesson. The only thing I remember from that was my teacher asking, "Didn't John Lennon's hair look dirty?" She was good looking, about 25, but obviously too overly enthralled with McCartney. "Pssst, hey teach, Lennon isn't the smart one anymore, he's the coolest one."
@@popgoesthe60s52 Getting to hear Day Tripper, Paperback Writer, Strawberry Fields Forever & Penny Lane all in a matter of months was unlike any musical era I've lived through since. Followed up with minor Macca tunes like Lady Madonna and Hey Jude, man, you could barely catch your breath. And when Paul supposedly blew his mind out in a car there was as much an outpouring of worldwide grief as the day after Dec 8th 1980. The Beatles were far more than a band, in the sixties they were the cultural spokesmen of youth everywhere in the world. I even remember a joke about two Russians: "What's that uproar in Red Square, a military coup?" "Not at all, comrade, John Lennon's singing 'Working Class Hero' and giving away free pairs of Levis."
I've always found this interesting and goes to a point I've always made...the reason why artists can turn to drugs very often is that if they're successful...they can afford all sorts of drugs now. A lot of what kept local and regional musicians straight was they didn't have the money to experiment. Growing up, I only knew a lot of hard drinkers. Anyway, I can imagine that Paul, George and Ringo were very well used to the drug induced philosophies and theories of John Lennon by 1968.
I ordered this book after watching this, Matt. It is excellent! ( I happen to have years of experience in the substance abuse field, trained during my MSW program). I love Joe Goodden's clear-headed commentary on the prevalence of drug use during this era (I participated as well). He does not glorify drugs at all, but at the time they were considered by many to be the solutions to all the problems of the world. But NOT heroin. Goodden notes that George Harrison had seen a movie (perhaps "Man with the Golden Arm") and knew that heroin was dangerous. There were enough dead jazz musicians, and the Beatles would have known of some of them (Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday, Coltrane -- who, miraculously kicked it.) Velvet Underground and the downtown NYC art world dominated by Warhol was a factor in the glorification of heroin.
In interviews and such, I've heard about Paul suffering a bronchial spasm during the recording of Band On The Run. I always hear the bronchial spasm attributed to "smoking." I've long wondered, "Smoking what, exactly?"
I adored this book, it explained a lot things that didn't make sense before that I've read in the myriad of other books about them. As for the break-up, it was a combination of Yoko's intrusion in the studio , the heroin she introduced to John and the resistance of Paul to drop acid to the degree George and John did imo
While watching parts 1 & 2 of Get Back, I got the strong feeling that both George and Ringo were extremely uncomfortable with how high John was. Whereas Paul, also uncomfortable ("Come now, Mr. Lennon) was willing to engage with him.
Agree with you 100%. Lots of bands used drugs, but not all were very good… we’ve heard of the Beatles et al, but what about the people who got burned out drum dig use and maybe never got famous? Just kinda goes to show you that the outlook of drug use of all bands of that time is massively overhyped. The Beatles were going to do great stuff anyway. Paul still writes amazing music and he’s clean as a whistle! If you were to talk to Paul one on one about the bands drug use, sure he’d say they used and tried things but overall I’m sure he would state the drugs’ overall importance as what it really was… fairly minimal.
Off Topic Jojo is Yoko John even commented on that to Paul It's obvious to me I think subconsciously Pauls adversion to her being in the studio sitting in front of his amp comes out. After Brian died Paul became the unofficial leader and the Beatles were his band. He's telling her to get back to where you belong which is NOT in the studio, as John had broken the rule. For all we know she didn't want to break that rule but if John insisted she would not go against her loyalty to John. Pretty sure John jumped in front of her on that fateful day.
Regarding Lennon and his attitude to LSD I can't help but note that in 1966 he wrote in Rain about not minding whether the sun was shining or whether the rain was pouring down, it was really all the same to him. About 18 months later he wrote, "Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun. If the sun don't come you get a tan from standing in the English rain", as if to make fun of the idea that the elements were really all the same thing to him. It makes me think that he was becoming disillusioned with trips by this stage and could see the absurdity of them now.
I remember reading in Peter Brown's book The Love You Make (or maybe Ray Colemans book)That Lennon claimed to have taken over a thousand LSD trips which Lennon claims damaged his ego.
@@erniefernandez1927 Yeah, I read that he was trying to destroy his ego because Timothy Leary had written that that was a good thing. Apparently at a party a lady wanted an ashtray for her cigarette and John pulled his nostril wide and told her to put her ash there. That's someone with a low sense of worth, I'd say. I read that he later resented that LSD made him so passive.
I will be doing more book reviews mixed in with the band histories so stay tuned. If you decide to purchase this book, please use the link in the description - I get a small percentage and it really helps this channel. Thanks for the comment, James!
Thanks for the vid and review. I was curious to learn that Paul apparently did LSD in '65. I was under the impression from Anthology and other sources that he held out much longer from taking LSD compared to John and George, maybe 18 months or so before he finally succumbed, and that this became a bit of a source of contention between the band. I remember an interview with George ( i think from Anthology) being quite bemused by the fact that Paul "announced" his LSD use to the press yet had only recently got into it compared to the others. So it's curious that this book claims he in fact tried it as early as '65.
They pinned it because it was at a specific party , none of the other Beatles were there. With George's quote, why is interesting is that Paul had used but not told the others for many months. Also despite what Paul said about his commitment to LSD, in that time he had only done it 'about 3 times' up until his interview, there is every suggestion that the second time was with John during the Pepper sessions. Furthermore, when in Greece and John and George were using and had invited him, again Paul declines, despite everything. There is a lot of suggestion that Paul wasn't into LSD and some weird band politics are at play. But who knows maybe there was a brief time when he was a believer.
Thanks Matt, sounds like an interesting book. Having experienced most of this stuff (I'm 69), except for being a famous musician, I believe that the creativity was more from being young/talented/experienced, from being in that time, and that none of this type of music had been written yet. If anything, drugs probably hindered their musicality. Personally, one of my life "do overs" would be to never have gotten involved with marijuana in my teens and to have skipped my L.S.D period (69'), with the exception of that 1 orange sunshine trip, the one where 3/4 of the tab went flying into the crack behind our bathroom sink after I cut it with a razor. Regards .....
Maybe that tab rolling behind the sink was for the best! That's interesting to hear your do overs. It seems to me that drug use begins for 1) recreational purposes OR 2) to medicate trauma. Drugs seem to have such a different affect from person to person, it's hard for a non-user to determine if they're positive or negative. Any thoughts on that?
@@popgoesthe60s52 yes, mileage will vary wildly with marijuana, for one. And all kinds of different motivations. Mainly, I think it’s most detrimental to young people (but hey, that’s when you want to get high) because it’s more likely to interfere with important development and you’re more likely to end up spending too much time involved with it. Like me. I was into all of the cool music before I started smoking in 68’ and I think I would have still ended up at all of those great concerts and appreciated all of that music even more, straight. I’ll always wonder what bands like The Beatles and fill-in-the-blank would have done musically without the big drug landscape. For some of them obviously, survive to excel.
As always Matt Great video ✌👍The Beatles music from 1965 to 1969 drugs played an important role in the bands developement in musical experimentations such songs líke Norwegian Wood,Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life, Im the Walrus, Revolution #9, and (Lennon's) Cold Turkey. LSD in particular takes the group into an opening of a pandoras box of sorts, with Paul McCartney being the last one to hold out not knowing what results LSD would bring, and then one day announcing publicly to the World on TV his facination with the drug.Then there's the origins of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds with John Lennon being in a psychedelic state of mind is influenced by a colorful school drawing that his son Julian brings home to show him, only later to deny it was never about LSD. The most legendary story of all is the famous Beverly Hills pool party in august of 65 where The Beatles,The Byrds and unknown actor at the time Peter Fonda,(Easy Rider)are all taking LSD(except Paul who is holding out), with Peter Fonda talking about what its líke being dead and John Lennon being upset and telling him: who put that "shite" in your head!!! -John would write the song She Said,She Said (Peter Fonda would later make a movie about LSD called -The Trip) but in my opinion the begining of end for the Beatles would be the death of their manager Brian Epstein who died of an overdose of drugs and alcohol . -With John saying "I knew We were in trouble", Lennon thought "We F@ckin had it".
Brian did so much for them, they had no idea. They were a big act, a whole multi-faceted business, corporation. They rejoiced in what advantages 💰 could give them, but they felt some discomfort at the thought of being fat pigs they despised. Not to mention the taxes & sycophants that chased them. They liked buying houses & things for their families. The business was so big & complex & they were used to a small inner circle taking care of them. After Brian, who stretched himself (perhaps to death), made it look easy & most of all they trusted him. Who could fill those shoes? Seems no-one could, really. Yes, a big shocker for them.
I would love to see you make a video (or series even) about the Beatles in India. That middle period of the Beatles anthology (Help - Sgt. Pepper) has always been my favorite and it seems to get swept under the rug in favor of the before and after.
The trip to India was pivotal. They were changed there. Compare for example, the interviews with John in 1966, to the interviews in 1968. John is angry, vicious and mocking interiviewers.
@@popgoesthe60s52 At least with your contacts, if you don't have the time, you could see if someone wants to take it on. I still hope someone, while Paul is still around, asks about their harmonies. How it got started (I know they wanted to be like the Every Brothers), how they decided how & what way they'd do them, who would do what, how much practice was involved, why didn't they get Ringo to join in, etc. It was such a powerful & moving aspects of "them", the music, the sound, but it's never brought up. I want to know these things. 😏🎸🎤👨❤️💋👨🎤👦🎙️🎸👨👨👦🎸🎧👢🎼.👍 Whoo whoaa oooh yeah! 👏👏👏
John seemed really motivated at the start of The White Album and Apple Records. He had recently dealt with the loss of Brian Epstein, he’d begun slowing down his use of LSD, he met Yoko Ono, and ended up writing some good songs for a few years.
Wow, I never realized how much the boys' relationship were affected by there drug use. When Paul sang "I'm looking through you, you're not the same," it almost seems like he's talking about himself rather than Jane Asher.
I always thought he was talking to the listener. Putting himself in the listeners place and making a bit of a sarcastic joke about it all at our expense. - That we'd probably noticed that they'd changed a bit and they were most likely talking about drugs or something. Something like that. If I was good with words that would have been one sentence.
I just discovered your channel and I love your content and the way you present it. I was a die hard Beatlefan in my teens and early 20s. I know you're not taking requests but it'll be great to see you do a video or series about The Who. Great work anyways! Suscribed 🙋
Hey Matt, nice job! I have a buddy who has this and recommended it to me. I didn't jump, but now, with your fab review I'll be getting it. Cheers Matt Street
I know they wrote like 50 songs while on their India retreat. Supposedly they weren't supposed to do drugs there and rather focus on meditation but I have a feeling they were loose with that rule. Can't confirm anything but they did write some really great stuff then but also consider how much the producer (George Martin) contributed and he certainly was no drug user.
I’m always amazed at the utter unanalytical stupidity of so many claims in history. John: “I must have had a thousand LSD trips.” OK, John first tried LSD in 1966, then he started to experiment with it seriously in late 1966. Assuming for arguments sake he took LSD, once a day, from August 28, 1966… 1000 trips later it would be about December 1, 1969. Really? He was on LSD for 2.7 years daily! This is the guy in 1969 that Paul and George Martin had to take up on the roof of Abby Road when he accidently took some LSD because he was terrified of it. Let’s talk heroin… It was also really cool in 1970 to say you took heroin too, trying to be tough like the Stones and others. John and Yoko were dabblers; John was not Keith Richards or Brian Jones, or a later Kurt Cobain, an addict, a junkie. As the drug dealer for the Stones mentioned in his book in the 1980’s, he gave John and Yoko some small amounts of heroin to keep them happy, they were light weights, like children, trying to fit in with the hard core crowd. They were never junkies.
Yeah, Keith Richards said as much too, that John was a lightweight. Street cred in the early 70s meant getting busted, which is why that never hurt McCartney's image
Great interesting show and quality. Interesting that there had been numerous busts. I (like I suppose most) only knew of the "one time Paul ever spent the night away from his wife" and the lowlife musician hating and busting Officer Pilcher that John (and everyone) so despised. I was thinking that on this channel had been earlier coverage of partaking on Her Majesty's rooftop; and (Paul?) feeling ill after one bad reaction either at the studio or a filmed interview; and George Martin's feelings (or feigned ignorance) about it and them and work.
Thanks, Matt, great video! I’d love to pick up that book. Ken Womack is a great Beatles author, as well as Robert Rodriguez; his book Revolver-How the Beatles Reimagined Rock n Roll is one of my favorites and actually got me to like Revolver, which I never really did until I read that book. Thanks again for your great work on these videos!
I read this book a couple of years ago. No index, no primary research, and self-published. Oh dear, I thought. But it's excellent! A really interesting way in which to retell the familiar story. I finished it in pretty much one sitting. And I was interested to note that, at least according to this book, mushrooms play almost no role in the Beatles' drug history.
I think the impact of drugs on songwriting and performance including recording is overstated, you cannot record and perform anything of value or at all with drugs, sure drugs can help to play all night but the after affects means you pay for it, the only means to perform well is to be sober, on drugs musicians think they have played really well, many have said that drugs are not an aid to playing well for example 🇬🇧✌️🏴
I couldn’t agree with you more. I had a little experience with this subject many years ago. I seem to remember Jimi Hendrix saying the same in an interview I read years ago.
@@jimmyb1559 thankyou for that, take for example Grace Slick who missed many live performances due to her bing incapacitated! Also looks at the destruction of Syd Barrett ! Lemmy was thrown out of Hawkwind because of his massive incapacitating drug use, sadly I could go on 🇬🇧🤘
1) “Drugs” is an extremely broad term in our culture. I’d distinguish psychedelics from opiates, stimulants, alcohol, etc. 2) Re: Performing & recording, perhaps the impact is overstated. Stimulants keep you going & give tons of energy during live performances but i get it, it can inhibit as well. However, the impact on songwriting is quite real IMO. LSD or mushrooms will absolutely change one’s worldview. Just compare pre-1965 Beatles songs to post-1965. Some can be attributed to personal and musical maturation, but IMO you don’t get the avant garde experimentation, crazy costumes, peace & love, and spiritual themes without “drugs”.
As one who has been smoking weed and eating psychedelics for 50+ years, my view is that those drugs don't change you - they just awaken parts of you already there but dormant.
Daniel...absolutely 🎯 3 years ago I would do psychedelics several times, like 3 or 4 months apart from each heavy dose. I had breakthroughs, I swear. I haven't done them in a year or so, dont really care to, but will if offered. I feel awakened in some ways, I know what you're talking about. ...I honestly don't care for weed, I turn it down a lot, but will smoke once or twice a year. Mushrooms and MDMA(Molly) is my jam😇😁
Matt, Another engrossing episode.I have not seen substantive comments on transcendental meditation, but when i was initiated in 1973, rule number one was no more drugs. Of course alcohol was not included as a drug, so drinking was okay. Ideally, when the Beatles were in India, their drug use should have stopped. TM was supposed to be a technique to relieve stress, and it certainly worked for me. I did give it up five years later when the two persons who convinced me to start TM went to the maharishi Institute in Fairfield. Iowa where TM was imbibed more as a cult or religion. As for drugs, they are not all the same. Some are physically addictive (psychedelics are not), but almost anything can be mentally addictive or just a habit. Lord knows, habits can be hard to break. Pot was generally less strong in the 60s (you got high, not stoned), but the scary results come from drugs like heroin and cocaine. Those two in particular are often 'cut' with baby powder or some other white powder. The result can be as bad an 18 year-old acquaintance 'trying' heroin once, only to get pure heroin and die from the overdose. Sure drugs can be bad, but ignorance is worse.
Paul took LSD for the first time in late 1965 or early 1966 while staying with his friend Tara Browne in London. Browne was the wealthy Guinness heir who "blew his mind out in a car" in late 1966.
I enjoyed the book but at the end of the day, it recounted stories I’ve read before in other Beatles books. It was almost like a micro history of various drugs and their influence on society and then the Beatles use of them (speed in Hamburg, Scotch n Coke, pot, LSD, heroin). The only revelation I read was that Paul took LSD in December of 1965.
I cannot remember the guy's name but he was apparently a major dealer to the British pop stars like Lennon, Keith Richard and Brian Jones to name a few. He wrote a book years ago and among other things claimed that John Lennon circa mid-late 1968 was so f'd up on dope that he thought for sure Lennon would soon be dead. Said he was as f'd up if not worse even than Brian Jones at the time. Don't know whether that's true or not but I do remember reading parts of the book this drug dealer wrote. Just wish I could remember the guy's name. I also remember reading that Derek Taylor had to actually remind Lennon what Beatles songs he had written due to his massive drugs intake.
It might be worth noting that their time with the Maharishi did not end well, but both Paul and Ringo (not the two one might expect) remain practitioners of Transcendental Meditation, performing together for David Lynch's TM foundation and mentioning TM in interviews. I've not tried it myself, but I know a lot of people who swear by it.
I feel out of all The Beatles, John’s drug use was the most prolific simply because he was self medicating his mental health problems. His childhood wasn’t exactly idyllic or even stable and this had a serious impact on him. I believe John never fully addressed or stopped his drug use. The closest he got was the primal scream therapy but the fact he didn’t follow through with its after effects only served to make the self medication even worse.
Good point, David. Most people don't realize that John needed another 6 months of Primal therapy according to Janov. The half treatment may have been worse than having none at all!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Exactly. Imagine stirring up all that trauma and instead of finishing the treatment, writing one of the greatest albums of all time instead.
Another great video! Thank you. So, it's fair to assume that Lennon spent the last 12 years of his life, except for some brief periods, as a heroin addict?
@@popgoesthe60s52 My recollection is that May Peng said that he was not on heroin during their time together in 1973-1974. But her strong inference was that he immediately returned to heroin upon reuniting with Ono in 1974.
@@ToadstoolShadow May Pang has a documentary coming out this week on her experience with John on his "Lost Weekend." I'm looking forward to Matt's take on it!
@@pennyparkin In one interview of Pang (can't remember where or when), she explicitly says that Lennon was off heroin during her relationship with him, but immediately went back on when he got back together with Ono.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The Beatles' drug experimentation has been romanticized over the years and too often spun in positive light as a creating force behind their music. The truth of the matter is, as apparently pointed out in this book, that drugs were ultimately a destructive force as it ruined their relationships and played a significant role in the dissolution of the band. This is one I'll be getting a copy of. Thanks for the review.
Hey Paul, you'll really love this book. Like much of the myth-busting perspectives out there, this book brings everything together in one place, which allows for proper evaluation. Please use the link in my description to buy the book when you are ready. I just watched your video with Larry tonight - loved it.
@Ross Smith That could be, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but there was more than one thing that caused the breakup. I'm not sure that in 1970 the difference in "musical direction" was a huge factor. I've never heard any of the four state that as a reason. Also consider that "musical differences" is often cited as a reason for band break ups or prominent members departing. More often than not that reason is found to be a cover for deeper issues. It is an interesting thought, for sure, though.
From everything I gather reading a lot and watching a lot of docs and interviews they were just done as a band regardless. They did accomplish an incredible amount of material but after time were not really working well together and were doing better with solo stuff. I don't blame Yoko either but I think John felt Paul was taking over too much and just didn't want to deal with it anymore. Both Ringo and George had already quit the band earlier as well because they were sick of it and didn't feel needed.
Not to mention times were a lot different by the end then it was when they were 4 kids sharing a tiny room in some bar in Hamburg. They were growing apart regardless of drugs.
Oh come on ... drugs didn’t ruin their relationship - many other factors did. Their drug of choice was cannabis and it surely didn’t harm their creativity. They dabbled in LSD but not when they were actively making music (how could they have?).
You know, the sad thing is that their best work was done while they were using, and as a musician of 40 years, yet sober for the last 20,( I'm not glorifying drugs), they ruined my health), I have lost the songwriting ability that used to come naturally, and yet blew 2 major label deals when they found out I was using Heroin. However, I must say that my years of heroin, and LSD use were my most musically productive, but caused a brush with insanity before I said I'd had enough, and have been 100% sober since 2002, not even alcohol! Thanks for your channel, I decided I would be Paul Macartney at 7, and have loved the Beatles my entire life!
Peace & Love, Keith
In Richmond VA
I'm happy to hear of your sobriety. It seems that excess over time never helps musicians keep their edge, though the edge can certainly be enhanced. Thanks for the substantive comment, Keith!
Saying their best work was done while using is strictly an opinion. Having said that, I'm also a recovering addict, and it's the opposite for me: I have been much more creative and productive in sobriety than I ever was high or drunk. I am happy for your sobriety, keep going, and God bless 🙂
@Ross Smith Thanks, will do!.
Paul needs to get high again!
Keith Richmonds
Very interesting, particularly the way Paul preferred cocaine instead of LSD which might explain his super-mega productive period.
As well as his profound gauntness throughout 1967. As soon as he stopped, his weight-gain would be noticeable the following year.
It also explains why he pushed Magical Mystery Tour as a "brilliant!" idea...
He was coked up during the Let it Be sessions, check out his weird rants about nothing lol that have been played on here
@@txmystic:
Magical Mystery Tour WAS a brilliant idea, it was the execution that was inferior because they were so intent on doing everything themselves. But on the other hand I wonder even if they had surrendered the writing and producing to others in an attempt to make it more commercially palatable if it would've turned out as good as it was.
Frankly, I unapologetically like MMT just the way it is, and the album was genius, (as was usual for the Beatles anyway).
Yeah, faul only took LSD four times, he said, because he didn't want to lie to the press about it.
11:52 John gets together with Yoko and the reverberation of this event echoes so intensely through the fabric of spacetime that the color saturation of the video itself changed...trippy...
wow indeed wow those two trips changed the course of his life, times and music... truly ....John seems to always have been the one to "suffer fools" in that way he was not like the rest of the band....George would never have been mates with blatent charletons like Yoko & Magic Alex and it was the latter who convinced John that george's mate 'Mr.Yogi" was a baddie!
@@w1lf1ewoo But isn't "eastern mysticism" a charlatan in a way? He certainly bought into it hook line & sinker.
I always love the story of the time the Beatles, the Byrds, and Peter Fonda among others had an LSD party, “ I know what it’s like to be dead”
Yes,but you left out the bit where they had him removed 'cos of the bad vibes he generated. Lennon thought he was a drag.
Missed The Byrds and especially David Crosby meetings with the Beatles. I have seen pictures - was before 1967.Read the Byrds history and you will see maybe they were a bigger influence and possibly suppliers. Cocaine was more a US drug
"who put all those things in your head?" that is a good story. I remember Lennon talking to Rolling Stone about that party inspiring 'She said she said' .John found Fonda's remarks unpleasant, but a great song was born out of it.
and she's making me me feel like i've never seen porn
I learn something new everytime I see one of your videos man. I truly appreciate your love for The Beatles. I love finding like minded people who are just as obsessed.
Thank you, Erick! Plenty more to come.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I agree with Eric!
One thing not mentioned but that is very clear from reading Lewishons book is that the culture of post-war England, particularly bombed out Liverpool was that children began drinking, rather heavily, at family gatherings and otherwise, and also smoked alot at an early age. The postwar era in Liverpool was so depressing that almost everyone, it seems, was either an alcoholic or binge-drinker during this time and that included all 4 Beatles.
Yes, the post war atmosphere was pervasive at that time and seems the opposite of what was going on in America post WWII. I wonder how American teen measure up to Liverpool teens with regard to alcohol during that time. Thanks for the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Every one liked to drink beer or whatever in Liverpool back in the day the pubs were rocking I can tell you it was a great drinking town well I am Irish mind you Irish people are fond of coke and weed at the moment ✌️💚🇮🇪
This is an excellent book. Most of the stories in it are known by most fans BUT never before has all the information been presented in such a way as to make the common thread running through the bands existence so obvious.
I agree. The collection of it all makes a fantastic story unto itself. Thank you for the comment, Arne.
I remember playing stickball with friends on the streets of West Harlem in 1967 when a kid yelled from his window that 2 of The Rolling Stones were just busted for drugs. We all looked at each other disappointed and confused. An older kid said All the groups do that shit" we then continued playing but at 12 years old in 67 I was highly skeptical. Surely not The Beatles too!! Lol
Matt - Thanks for your ongoing, in-depth analyses of The Beatles along with so many other less famous and less documented bands. Truly a joy to see new content from you each time!
In a reply to another viewer’s comment you point out that the effect that drugs have varies from person to person. That’s absolutely true - somewhat obvious but certainly important to point out. I reflect on the devastating effect that hallucinogenics had on someone as sensitive and fragile as Brian Wilson along with many other artists who ended up being drug casualties. It’s absolutely amazing that Brian is still with us (and that he survived both of his brothers) and how much truly excellent music he’s produced over these many years.
As you also point out, drugs definitely played a role in the evolution of so much of The Beatles music (and others), but there was definitely a heavy price to be paid.
Thanks again - truly enjoy your work!
Thank you, Edwin. Your comments are much appreciated!
The Dylan/Beatles drug revelations of the 60s influenced us back then to experiment with drugs to get on the same wavelength as the artist...the change came and we music lovers have never been the same..great job my friend!!!
I am currently 2/3rds through this book and it is utterly fascinating. I don't think I will ever quite look at The Beatles in the same way again.
Matt, Another Set of Compelling Insights Into The Beatles.
Gotta Read This Book.
By the way, I’m Committing 2022-2023 to Writing My Book, Unrelated to The Beatles, Although Who Knows What’s Gonna Come Out of My Head In the End.
Don’t Buy the Notion (by Some) That the Heavy Drug Years Were the Most Creatively Productive for Paul. McCartney Was Always a Prolific Music Composer.
There is Something to Be Said, in a Separate Discussion, About How Creativity Wanes With Most Great Artists.
I touched upon the creative muse being most vibrant in younger songwriters. I've gotten some guff from McCartney lovers, some of whom think his current music is as good as his 1970s stuff. I may expand on this in future videos. Good luck with the book!
Finally a new Pop Goes the 60s! I was going through withdrawals.. Anyway, a great video as always Matt. Keep em coming. I agree with George, marijuana definitely enhances the enjoyment of music. Legal here in Canada for about 2 years and society hasn't collapsed.
Thank you, Trunk. I'll keep 'em coming!
yeah. in 2016, we in Massachusetts voted it in, and it wasn't even close. I think we won by a million votes. so, in '17 it became legal, 80 years after the Feds outlawed it in '37, w/ a propaganda campaign that was really a disgrace. 80 fucking years!! they'd learned nothing from the gigantic failure of prohibition. anyone who's seen 'COPS reloaded' (very entertaining reality TV), knows that the Libertarians are right. all illicit drugs should be available like booze is.
@@mark9058 that is as it should be. and it won't ever change. driving impaired is a danger to all of us. but booze affects your spatial view in a bad way. as far as legalization, the Feds apparently still can bust you if you grow more than 7 plants, but I haven't heard lately, about anyone getting busted for that. even the Feds are coming around. when they can tax you, they love it.
@@mark9058 Totally legalized; stores & everything.
But driving under the influence is a big no-no.
According to Chris O'Dell the seventies were far crazier in terms of drug taking than the sixties and all four seem to have become drug casualties during this time - including Paul who mentions excessive cocaine use which Linda helped him put a stop to.
It makes perfect sense, really. When they were a tight-knit gang of four in the Sixties, they always had three other Beatles (five if you include Derek Taylor and Neil Aspinall) to call their bluff in the event that it became a problem. After the break-up, they drifted into their own circles and, naturally, those circles are going to contain a certain number of hangers on, "yes-men," and enablers. By no means am I against drug use of any kind, but it's better to do that kind of thing around true friends - especially those whose careers just so happen depend on you. As stifling as it may appear to be, there's a certain freedom to be found in that type of familiar atmosphere. Healthy limitations imposed by circumstance, if you will.
This was certainly the situation in society in England generally. In the 60s a few took drugs and they were romanticised. By the 70s drugs such as heroin, cocaine and LSD were easier to get. The dark side appeared. Addiction, hepatitis and other infections from contaminated shared needles. Death, ODs
I didn't know Paul was big into coke. With the kids & farm & all?
I thought he was smoking pot & raising & sheering sheep 🐑🐏 (in the heart of the country)..🏕️
I only recently found out that George was using a lot in the seventies.
That explains why he looked so awful. Later, though, I guess he cleaned up & looked pure
gorgeous. 😍😗
I recently heard a doctor say that the knife attack in his home, caused his life to be shortened.
He had part of one lung removed a few years earlier & the other one collapsed from the attack.
It had a huge negative impact on him & Olivia. After being a cautious recluse to avoid
the crazies -- one goes right into his house /castle. How bizarre! 🙀
Love to George 💗🌼🥰🌞📿🎸👨🌾. Here comes the sun.... 🌤️ 💖🌄 🎶 🌅🏵️🌱 ☀️🍎💛
I’m sure it was George who told the story about the time when Ray Charles and his band played in Liverpool and one of the locals had commented that Charles must be really stingy about paying his band as two band members had been seen in the gents toilets ‘forced’ to share the same cigarette between them 😀
This channel feels like lessons in music history from the primary sources! Thanks for the great content man!
My pleasure!
Great review Matt. I grew up with The Beatles and never having taken drugs myself maybe reading the book would shatter my nieve outlook! I was just a kid enjoying their music.
Same here! I had no idea of the goings on behind the scenes. Either way, we got some great music!
I was past 20 when I realized ELVIS was not a clean living country boy during his life. Geraldo Rivera opened my eyes on that one.
Wow Matt, very well put together, no judgement just how it was. As a boy I was told the sixties offered a chance for real change, or that was how it was pitched in the ads, as an adult I wondered if the phenomenon of the baby boom generation was squandered by drugs. It would be naïve, on my part, to think that The Beatles drug use didn't have a creative boost to their music, but still who can say.
I heard George Harrison in an interview that he went to San Francisco during the summer of love, and what he saw reminded him of the bowery, later saying he viewed some LSD through a microscope and it looked like pieces of rope, and decided not to put that in himself. He seemed to have had a clear understanding that the drugs weren't taking them anywhere he wanted to go. Or at least that is how I remember it.
At some point you have to wonder about Apple, and what it started out to be, and what it could have accomplished with free thinking clear headed leadership, perhaps silicon valley would have been in Great Britain.
Great job Matt.
Thank you, James, I appreciate the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 You may be the best journalist on the new media (RUclips)
@@nomehdrider That's high praise, James - Much thanks!
Huge fan, keep making these vids! Love learning all the never ending details of the Beatles!
Thank you, Darrin - more to come!
Sounds like a great read. I understand the first cannabis experience (prior to Zim) had the cannabis sprinkled into a hand rolled tobacco cigarette. I've wondered if hashish. was ever on the menu. The cocaine available in 1967 was of the liquid variety. I thought Paul's first trip was when he brought John back to his flat. After Johns infamous EMI rooftop stroll. Most musicians using H in 1968 were snorting (and vomiting) . Not injecting. You handled this topic/review professionally. No surprise their Matt Thank you for your diligence, , Great video, RNB
Thank you, RNB - much appreciated.
That was the official version of Paul's first acid trip, but he apparently took it (clandestinely) sometime in early 1966 (before the Revolver sessions). He declined taking it 1965, making him the odd man out.
c009, I have always thought the kerfuffle that left Macca off She Said She Said had a couple possibilities. The pressure to record 1 final track for Revolver,(it was their last possible day to record a final song). SSSS being a rhythmically challenging song may have given Paul some trouble nailing it down. Someone may have suggested that the songs storyline (when Paul didn't trip with J,G &R) might've ticked Paul off. Since George helped John arrange 3 song fragments into SSSS, it may've been suggested that George play the bass (as he had done on Taxman). Paul, being fed up with the attitudes coming from all sides said "Eff Off" and left the session. If the others knew he had already dosed, that blows my theory out of the water. Cheers, RNB
@@ricknbacker5626 Thanks for weighing in-you brought up some interesting points indeed. In fact, they do seem quite plausible. To be honest, I had, surprisingly, never thought about what the the actual cause of what went down between Paul and the others during the SSSS session. As John and George aren't around to divulge, only Paul knows (as well as Ringo?) and he has skirted around the issue in the past, downplaying it for whatever reason. But I think you are onto something-as Paul wasn't tripping with the others during the Peter Fonda incident, he didn't feel any particular closeness to SSSS in regard to the song's fodder and as a result, he wasn't too into it. Or perhaps John and George were ridiculing and giving him a hard way to during the session for not tripping with them the previous summer (or since then) and McCartney had had enough and split the session. Or something along those lines. Regarding Paul's Revolver song, GTGYIML, he always claimed that that was his "ode" to pot, but the lyrics suggest that it's about something much stronger than weed. And it seems that an "ode" to weed would have already been on their 'weed' album, Rubber Soul. For whatever reason, I think Paul did not want to let on to the others that he had tripped on LSD (also, the official 'first time' tripping with John in 1967 story makes for better copy as well as putting himself in a better light). It's peculiar that, although he was apparently 'apprehensive' about taking LSD for the almost supposedly two years after J and G's first trip, Paul had been regularly using coke for approximately half a year before his 'first' LSD trip.
@@ricknbacker5626 love the name.
This has nothing to do with the video but I just want to let you know that your channel is amazing. I just love the amount of detail you go into and all the analyses you do for each video. Thank you for this
Thank you, Owen - plenty more to come!
Speaking of drugs, I saw you dropped a video and felt like the addict who just saw his best connection walk through the door! I am really hooked on your content...thanks for all you do!
That's high praise, William - thank you!
@@popgoesthe60s52 The comment above made me watch the whole video...🙊🙈-Interesting content Indeed.
Again let me congratulate you on a great presentation. Just my observation: at least two Beatles detested the “loveable mop top” image, but ironically, they believed they were somehow immune to the evils of heroin and coke. Mop tops couldn’t get addicted, right? All of them fell into an insidious trap and without Brian to bail them out in mid 1967, our lads embarked upon a number of failed projects that would destroy the group over a period of two years. The MMT failure. The trip to India. The Get Back film. Apple. The one factor that is consistent during these failed projects was drug use. As for the two prominent LSD trips, with Lennon, I don’t think they had much to do with his bizarre attraction to Yoko. Yoko began cultivating this relationship as early as 1966. The neck piece she gave John is prominent in photos in mid-1967. Further she is referenced twice in Sgt. Pepper. John’s driver says they were having an affair in 1967. Further Yoko shows up at the very first recording session following Brian’s death in which John and Paul are working on Fool on the Hill and Walrus. (Good timing Yoko!). Yoko is likewise present at the Bulldog sessions in early 1968, and John is trying to take her to India a few weeks later, but can’t manage it. The LSD trip(s) in April may be related to John’s call to Yoko, but more likely they were part of John’s attempt to deal with his inner turmoil and confusion relative to his domestic chaos and feelings of worthlessness. Yoko did not entice him with drugs as some have suggested. John was an emotional train wreck and she just happened to be at the station.
I never fail to learn from you! Riveting. Thank you. 🍎🕯️⭐
You do Gooden's book justice Matt. I know that some might shy away from this work in a misconception that it would merely be a tawdry recounting of a rock/pop band's drug deprivations. Much to our enjoyment and the advancement of Beatle's scholarship this is not the case at all, but instead it is an excellent description of both the substances and the context surrounding their use by the four.
One thing that Gooden does not touch upon in detail is who exactly supplied them with their drugs. You make a superb point in that in the music business drugs will find you, but herion was something normally only be handled by serious organized crime.
Not to be too prurient about it, but someone was supplying this circle in London with all they needed and it makes me think it might have been part of the Kray Brothers crime syndicate as they were the heavies at the time. As we know, drug supplies go hand in hand with some pretty rough criminals yet we don't hear much about that in this period.
Wherever they might have obtained what they wanted/needed, frankly I am surprised that they were able to work creatively as long as they did.
Ringo's addictions in the 70s I find to be the saddest. He has hinted at domestic violence and near existential struggles. In the Beatles years he just didn't seem to be a personality that would become chemically dependent...but that's the tragedy as it can happen to anyone.
Thank you, Neal. The heroin distribution in England and London specifically was from psychiatrists with support from the state, not organized crime - at least not in the 1960s. Psychiatrist Lady Isabella Frankau was notorious for giving out scripts of 10 grams each of heroin and cocaine for the equivalent of $3.50! People came from all over.The book reports that she dispensed 600,000 heroin tablets (100 kilos) in 1962 alone! The idea of giving out coke with the heroin is that the cocaine would "pick you up" and enable you to work a job and contribute to society. People would acquire a prescription and sell it on the streets. Lennon & Ono had a live in family that had the prescription which was eventually how they managed it. Interesting stuff.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thank you Matt. I read the book last year and had already forgotten that point. Many thanks for filling that in! 👍
@@popgoesthe60s52 If I remember correctly, James Taylor was Lennon's go-to guy (or one of them) for H.
(See: one of the RUclips videos on JT's experiences with The Beatles).
@@Neal_Schier wow you wrote all that but had read the book? What did you say again?
@@popgoesthe60s52 there was a Pharmacy at Piccadilly Circus in London which distributed many of these prescriptions.
Very interesting. The Dylan story has passed into legend, especially given that they mention it in the Anthology video. Goes to show that reality is more complex.
That's the trouble with a good story. It's not necessarily the true story.
I seem to recall that in Anthology, the 3 explicitly mention that they had tried it before, but it wasn't effective, and Dylan had better stuff or something like that
As someone else mentioned in a comment, I'm not sure McCartney had had acid by the end of 1965.
I read this book, based on your having mentioned it in another video. Thanx for the steer. The big revelation to me was about McCartney's cocaine use. It really does make sense as a factor in his super-productive period of 1966 and '67.
The December 13, 1965 LSD trip by McCartney is extensively discussed in this book. I think it was originally reported to have been December 1966, which may be where the confusion is. Thanks for watching!
@@popgoesthe60s52 I was under the impression Paul had not taken LSD until at least late 1966 or even sometime in 1967. He recalls himself being the only Beatle to not take acid, while the other three had done so. I think their 2nd trip was at LA in late '65 (?) - the famous Peter Fonda episode "I know what its like to be dead." Paul held out for a while - so I don't think it was Dec. '65 when he took it first.
@@Peter-qu3lv It was 12 December 1965, the final night of the British tour. There us quite a lot of information regarding this evening and the citation is Steve Turner's book, Beatles '66: The Revolutionary Year, where McCartney is quoted. John was present that evening (as was John Entwistle) but he went home early, leaving Tara Browne, Viv Prince and McCartney to go to Browne's house where they took it via sugar cubes in their tea. McCartney stayed the night.
I agree with what you're saying about John first trip with Yoko that, he never came back from that... trip.
Yoko Oh no .
Great video. I was hesitant about reading this book, but now I’m very interested based on your account of it. Great review as always.
I'm diggin' your channel my man...Thanks For Sharing. };}]~
Excellent as always. I was particularly fascinated by the fact that not only did drugs influence individual songs and writing style, but influenced the relative course of the productivity of the Beatles (Paul compared to John and George), as well as their eventual breakup. Thx!!!
Yes, it often hindered their creativity and essentially burned them out around '68, hence the Maharishi trip, as they were pretty burned. Also, according to Emerick's book, they were very different post- India and constantly high
I have always found it a bit ironic that the Maharishi trip, which was about finding inner peace and contentment, only seemed to divide the Beatles. Specifically, it seemed to bring John and George to a place where they felt connected to something else, but thereby less connected to the group.
Paul liked his weed big time. instead of junk and LSD, he chose a more creative-friendly drug. it got him arrested 3, 4 times, but back then it was scandalous. I still think 'LET IT BE' was at least partly an homage to the Cannabis plant.
Moderation in all things, especially chemical substances.
great book, read a few weeks ago. I had known of almost all substances mentioned from previous books, but what stood out the most for me was how deep the Beatles were with the Predulin/speed....I knew about Hamburg but man they were lit to the gills on those things all the way to Help when they started hitting the ganj...quality book
Thank you for the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 great channel -keep it up!
I did not know john was on H..
That is crazy..
Thank you for the video.
Thanks for the excellent review. Related to your subject matter here, I imagine you may have also read "Beatles '66: The Revolutionary Year" by Steve Turner? If not, you may want to consider it. A chapter for each month of that year. A truly fascinating account of the many changes they went through individually, together, and the crowd they hung out with at the time, in particular McCartney. Extraordinary people in extraordinary times.
I've not read that but I like your recommendation. So much to read!
The connection between acid and the egos of George and John being 'unravelled' and Paul taking cocaine and having his sped up is good. But it you use the career of Elton John to trace the same influence of the White Powder on his musical output, you can easily detect the rise and fall of the effect of drugs and touring. So what was really going on?
In the Let It Be tapes (January 1969) you can hear Paul saying, "I've been leading the group for two years, and I don't really want to do that." John has left and the rest are discussing Yoko and John. And I think that more or less makes sense.
In January 1967 The Beatles were half-way through record Pepper, an album that should have included Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane. Paul was having his moment of awakening as a solo artist. This would be driven home the next year with the release of the first Apple single: Hey Jude. That single should have been on the White Album. It would have taken the same space as the druggy Revolution 9, and made the White Album the best double-LP in the album era. January 1969 sees Paul still at the helm of the group blasting out Get Back and Let it Be, while also recording Two Of Us-Every Brothers Style-with John.
However by January 1969 it is also clear the George is having his renaissance as a solo artist, and his songs should have filled out the Let It Be album from its current, pithy, 35:10 minutes to a full 50-minute record. Or a second double album, why not?
Later that year, Harrison made it official putting the best two songs on Abbey Road, except for that Long One... In the Long One, which McCartney went on to explore in his next two albums Ram(on) and Red Rose Speedway, we hear both the magic of John & Paul writing together their minute-plus rockers, and the band jamming together in the studio, providing the best 18 bars of guitar solos in the album rock era. Including the Ringo Starr solo moving across the two stereo Chanels like it never had done before on a Beatles record.
But it was McCartney that had got them back into the studio, and who more or less 'soldiered on' in the process. Had Harrison been given more space in the albums, the concert he is hear saying he never wanted to do in the Let It Be tapes-the Concert for Bangla Desh-could have been the Beatles reunion. Following Bob Dylan, John and Paul could have come on stage and backed by all the other musicians they might have ripped through the Long One, laying claim to having laid down the best LP side of the album rock era.
Great comment, Car-O. I do believe had the Beatles been able to manage the break up more professionally, the Concert for Bangla Desh would have made sense for a farewell.
A huge part of what the Beatles did musically was attributable to their highly experimental and extremely creative approach. Their experimentation with altered states of consciousness gave us some of the most memorable music that they created. Those who criticize them for their experimentation with mind-altering substances would, no doubt, also criticize Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes), Oscar Wilde (The Importance of Being Earnest, The Picture of Dorian Gray), and Aldous Huxley (The Doors of Perception) for similar reasons. Another point worth making is that there is a growing body of scientific evidence (for example, research conducted at Johns Hopkins University) confirming Paul McCartney's point that consciousness-altering drugs and botanicals can have medically and psychologically beneficial properties.
Good points, Robin! Thanks for commenting.
so sad how much drugs did in so many of the 60 and 70 Rockers
I respect the fact you love the music and history of The Beatles as much as anyone, myself included.
You deserve to have been born earlier in time so you could have watched Beatle history unfold in real
time. 79 days before The Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan the first time, JFK was killed. The US had
mourned for 78 days and was ready to embrace The Beatles and resume leading happy lives again;
and JohnPaulGeorge&Ringo were a good reason to smile away, at least for Americans under 21. That
was the climate of the country when they stepped onto the tarmac in NYC in early '64. A rock band
NEVER got their picture on the front page of every paper in the nation. I was already hearing I Want
To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You 300 times a day on AM radio (FM wouldn't become big for 4
or 5 years) but that newspaper photo was the first time I saw what The Beatles looked like. All in all
they seem like a well-timed phenomenon and a phenomenon they were. I wasn't even going to watch
them on Ed Sullivan, but heard them from my bedroom and joined my family in the living room. You
could just tell that somehow you'd witnessed a page of history turn before your very eyes. In 1968
when the Smother Brothers or Sullivan or some variety show played the video of Hey Jude one of my
teachers the next day opened class with, "Did anyone see The Beatles on TV last night?" Of course
all of us kids saw it and I forget what class she taught but we had a Beatles discussion hour that day
in lieu of a lesson. The only thing I remember from that was my teacher asking, "Didn't John Lennon's
hair look dirty?" She was good looking, about 25, but obviously too overly enthralled with McCartney.
"Pssst, hey teach, Lennon isn't the smart one anymore, he's the coolest one."
I would have liked to know the anticipation of what the next single was going to be! Thanks for the comment.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Getting to hear Day Tripper, Paperback Writer, Strawberry Fields Forever & Penny Lane
all in a matter of months was unlike any musical era I've lived through since. Followed up with minor Macca
tunes like Lady Madonna and Hey Jude, man, you could barely catch your breath. And when Paul supposedly
blew his mind out in a car there was as much an outpouring of worldwide grief as the day after Dec 8th 1980.
The Beatles were far more than a band, in the sixties they were the cultural spokesmen of youth everywhere
in the world. I even remember a joke about two Russians: "What's that uproar in Red Square, a military coup?"
"Not at all, comrade, John Lennon's singing 'Working Class Hero' and giving away free pairs of Levis."
@@DAGDRUM53 Great joke - never heard that one!
I've always found this interesting and goes to a point I've always made...the reason why artists can turn to drugs very often is that if they're successful...they can afford all sorts of drugs now. A lot of what kept local and regional musicians straight was they didn't have the money to experiment. Growing up, I only knew a lot of hard drinkers. Anyway, I can imagine that Paul, George and Ringo were very well used to the drug induced philosophies and theories of John Lennon by 1968.
Money does matter and it was really flowing in swingin' London! Thanks for the comment.
I ordered this book after watching this, Matt. It is excellent! ( I happen to have years of experience in the substance abuse field, trained during my MSW program). I love Joe Goodden's clear-headed commentary on the prevalence of drug use during this era (I participated as well). He does not glorify drugs at all, but at the time they were considered by many to be the solutions to all the problems of the world. But NOT heroin. Goodden notes that George Harrison had seen a movie (perhaps "Man with the Golden Arm") and knew that heroin was dangerous. There were enough dead jazz musicians, and the Beatles would have known of some of them (Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday, Coltrane -- who, miraculously kicked it.) Velvet Underground and the downtown NYC art world dominated by Warhol was a factor in the glorification of heroin.
Hey Penny, thank you for the substantive comments!
In interviews and such, I've heard about Paul suffering a bronchial spasm during the recording of Band On The Run. I always hear the bronchial spasm attributed to "smoking." I've long wondered, "Smoking what, exactly?"
Did he quit smoking - tobacco? Must have being vegan & all.
I adored this book, it explained a lot things that didn't make sense before that I've read in the myriad of other books about them. As for the break-up, it was a combination of Yoko's intrusion in the studio , the heroin she introduced to John and the resistance of Paul to drop acid to the degree George and John did imo
While watching parts 1 & 2 of Get Back, I got the strong feeling that both George and Ringo were extremely uncomfortable with how high John was. Whereas Paul, also uncomfortable ("Come now, Mr. Lennon) was willing to engage with him.
It´s a real pleasure watching your videos Matt. Intelligent and objective which is unusual this days on youtube. Thanks a lot.
That's high praise - thank you, Eduardo.
Love these videos Matt! Keep them coming!
Plenty to come, Fast Tony!
"Y'know Pete, it's the same experience , for all of us. We all experience the same things, in life". John to Pete Shotton, on a trip.
Many of the groups back then used drugs. But how many put out the kind of music the Beatles did? It was talent.
Agree with you 100%. Lots of bands used drugs, but not all were very good… we’ve heard of the Beatles et al, but what about the people who got burned out drum dig use and maybe never got famous? Just kinda goes to show you that the outlook of drug use of all bands of that time is massively overhyped. The Beatles were going to do great stuff anyway. Paul still writes amazing music and he’s clean as a whistle! If you were to talk to Paul one on one about the bands drug use, sure he’d say they used and tried things but overall I’m sure he would state the drugs’ overall importance as what it really was… fairly minimal.
Off Topic
Jojo is Yoko
John even commented on that to Paul
It's obvious to me
I think subconsciously Pauls adversion to her being in the studio sitting in front of his amp comes out.
After Brian died Paul became the unofficial leader and the Beatles were his band.
He's telling her to get back to where you belong which is NOT in the studio, as John had broken the rule.
For all we know she didn't want to break that rule but if John insisted she would not go against her loyalty to John.
Pretty sure John jumped in front of her on that fateful day.
Regarding Lennon and his attitude to LSD I can't help but note that in 1966 he wrote in Rain about not minding whether the sun was shining or whether the rain was pouring down, it was really all the same to him. About 18 months later he wrote, "Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun. If the sun don't come you get a tan from standing in the English rain", as if to make fun of the idea that the elements were really all the same thing to him. It makes me think that he was becoming disillusioned with trips by this stage and could see the absurdity of them now.
Great observation, Scott. I hadn't thought about that. Thanks for the comment!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thanks for replying. I really enjoy your videos. Cheers.
I remember reading in Peter Brown's book The Love You Make (or maybe Ray Colemans book)That Lennon claimed to have taken over a thousand LSD trips which Lennon claims damaged his ego.
@@erniefernandez1927 Yeah, I read that he was trying to destroy his ego because Timothy Leary had written that that was a good thing. Apparently at a party a lady wanted an ashtray for her cigarette and John pulled his nostril wide and told her to put her ash there. That's someone with a low sense of worth, I'd say. I read that he later resented that LSD made him so passive.
@@Scotttyist OMG!Cant get that image out of my head about his nostril being an ashtray!!!
Really good listen, thank you! 💛
This is great stuff Matt, got to read this now.. Would like to see more Beatles book reviews or a top 5 even.
I will be doing more book reviews mixed in with the band histories so stay tuned. If you decide to purchase this book, please use the link in the description - I get a small percentage and it really helps this channel. Thanks for the comment, James!
Very composed video, thanks!
Thanks for the vid and review. I was curious to learn that Paul apparently did LSD in '65. I was under the impression from Anthology and other sources that he held out much longer from taking LSD compared to John and George, maybe 18 months or so before he finally succumbed, and that this became a bit of a source of contention between the band. I remember an interview with George ( i think from Anthology) being quite bemused by the fact that Paul "announced" his LSD use to the press yet had only recently got into it compared to the others. So it's curious that this book claims he in fact tried it as early as '65.
The quotes on the 1965 LSD use by Paul comes from the Barry Miles book _Many Years From Now._
They pinned it because it was at a specific party , none of the other Beatles were there. With George's quote, why is interesting is that Paul had used but not told the others for many months.
Also despite what Paul said about his commitment to LSD, in that time he had only done it 'about 3 times' up until his interview, there is every suggestion that the second time was with John during the Pepper sessions.
Furthermore, when in Greece and John and George were using and had invited him, again Paul declines, despite everything.
There is a lot of suggestion that Paul wasn't into LSD and some weird band politics are at play. But who knows maybe there was a brief time when he was a believer.
Just finished this yesterday... great book
Thanks Matt, sounds like an interesting book. Having experienced most of this stuff (I'm 69), except for being a famous musician, I believe that the creativity was more from being young/talented/experienced, from being in that time, and that none of this type of music had been written yet. If anything, drugs probably hindered their musicality. Personally, one of my life "do overs" would be to never have gotten involved with marijuana in my teens and to have skipped my L.S.D period (69'), with the exception of that 1 orange sunshine trip, the one where 3/4 of the tab went flying into the crack behind our bathroom sink after I cut it with a razor. Regards .....
Maybe that tab rolling behind the sink was for the best! That's interesting to hear your do overs. It seems to me that drug use begins for 1) recreational purposes OR 2) to medicate trauma. Drugs seem to have such a different affect from person to person, it's hard for a non-user to determine if they're positive or negative. Any thoughts on that?
@@popgoesthe60s52 yes, mileage will vary wildly with marijuana, for one. And all kinds of different motivations. Mainly, I think it’s most detrimental to young people (but hey, that’s when you want to get high) because it’s more likely to interfere with important development and you’re more likely to end up spending too much time involved with it. Like me. I was into all of the cool music before I started smoking in 68’ and I think I would have still ended up at all of those great concerts and appreciated all of that music even more, straight. I’ll always wonder what bands like The Beatles and fill-in-the-blank would have done musically without the big drug landscape. For some of them obviously, survive to excel.
As always Matt Great video ✌👍The Beatles music from 1965 to 1969 drugs played an important role in the bands developement in musical experimentations such songs líke Norwegian Wood,Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life, Im the Walrus, Revolution #9, and (Lennon's) Cold Turkey. LSD in particular takes the group into an opening of a pandoras box of sorts, with Paul McCartney being the last one to hold out not knowing what results LSD would bring, and then one day announcing publicly to the World on TV his facination with the drug.Then there's the origins of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds with John Lennon being in a psychedelic state of mind is influenced by a colorful school drawing that his son Julian brings home to show him, only later to deny it was never about LSD. The most legendary story of all is the famous Beverly Hills pool party in august of 65 where The Beatles,The Byrds and unknown actor at the time Peter Fonda,(Easy Rider)are all taking LSD(except Paul who is holding out), with Peter Fonda talking about what its líke being dead and John Lennon being upset and telling him: who put that "shite" in your head!!! -John would write the song She Said,She Said (Peter Fonda would later make a movie about LSD called -The Trip) but in my opinion the begining of end for the Beatles would be the death of their manager Brian Epstein who died of an overdose of drugs and alcohol . -With John saying "I knew We were in trouble", Lennon thought "We F@ckin had it".
Thank you, Ernie! I Appreciate the comment.
Brian did so much for them, they had no idea. They were a big act, a whole multi-faceted business,
corporation. They rejoiced in what advantages 💰 could give them, but they felt some
discomfort at the thought of being fat pigs they despised.
Not to mention the taxes & sycophants that chased them. They liked buying houses & things for their families.
The business was so big & complex & they were used to a small inner circle taking care of them.
After Brian, who stretched himself (perhaps to death), made it look easy & most of all they trusted
him. Who could fill those shoes? Seems no-one could, really. Yes, a big shocker for them.
Paul’s “Got to get you into my life” was about marijuana.
Love the Beatles content man, thank you 👍🏼
My pleasure. Thanks for watching, Cannan.
Thank you for sharing, I will now buy this book!
If you decide to buy, use my link in the description. The purchase gives me a little kick back and helps support the channel. Thanks for commenting!
Read this a year ago. Excellent!
I'm actually reading this book right now and really enjoying it. It's kind of a must read for Beatle freaks like me. Nice review.
Thanks, Curt. It's a real page turner.
Great topic and book review, thank you
Hey Matt! Great video about the Beatles drug use. I agree once John and Yoko started doing heroin. That was it for the Beatles.
I would love to see you make a video (or series even) about the Beatles in India. That middle period of the Beatles anthology (Help - Sgt. Pepper) has always been my favorite and it seems to get swept under the rug in favor of the before and after.
Yeah, that would be a worthy topic. I have such a long list - 20 years worth! Thanks for the request.
@@popgoesthe60s52 I'm looking forward to it all man. Keep up the good work.
The trip to India was pivotal. They were changed there. Compare for example, the interviews with John in 1966, to the interviews in 1968. John is angry, vicious and mocking interiviewers.
@@popgoesthe60s52 At least with your contacts, if you don't have the time,
you could see if someone wants to take it on.
I still hope someone, while Paul is still around, asks about their harmonies.
How it got started (I know they wanted to be like the Every Brothers), how they decided how & what
way they'd do them, who would do what, how much practice was involved, why didn't they get Ringo
to join in, etc.
It was such a powerful & moving aspects of "them", the music, the sound,
but it's never brought up.
I want to know these things. 😏🎸🎤👨❤️💋👨🎤👦🎙️🎸👨👨👦🎸🎧👢🎼.👍 Whoo whoaa oooh yeah! 👏👏👏
That lighting change after mentioning Yoko Ono.. the red fires of the devil 🤣
She does have that effect!
9:07. 11:52
John seemed really motivated at the start of The White Album and Apple Records. He had recently dealt with the loss of Brian Epstein, he’d begun slowing down his use of LSD, he met Yoko Ono, and ended up writing some good songs for a few years.
Wow, I never realized how much the boys' relationship were affected by there drug use. When Paul sang "I'm looking through you, you're not the same," it almost seems like he's talking about himself rather than Jane Asher.
I always thought he was talking to the listener. Putting himself in the listeners place and making a bit of a sarcastic joke about it all at our expense. - That we'd probably noticed that they'd changed a bit and they were most likely talking about drugs or something. Something like that. If I was good with words that would have been one sentence.
@@jeromehattkronen2305 c’est au
Q
Fascinating book. Excellent summary! I wondered if the used mushrooms?
Mushrooms didn't come up in the book. Good question.
Of course they took mushrooms George wrote a song about it called soft hearted Hannah in the 1970s come on guys
@@GEOFFREYGIULIANO Thank you, Geoffrey!
In 1980 John said that shrooms were not beyond his "scope" maybe twice a year. I don't know if he and the others partook in the '60s.
I just discovered your channel and I love your content and the way you present it. I was a die hard Beatlefan in my teens and early 20s. I know you're not taking requests but it'll be great to see you do a video or series about The Who.
Great work anyways!
Suscribed 🙋
I do take requests and the more I get for one band, the further up they move on the list! Thanks for watching, David.
PS I just bought the book (which I had been meaning to buy for some time) and have started reading it.
Hey Matt, nice job! I have a buddy who has this and recommended it to me. I didn't jump, but now, with your fab review I'll be getting it. Cheers Matt Street
Thank you, Mr. Street! Always flattered to have you watch one of my videos.
Paul has such a clean image now that I'd forgotten how, through the Seventies, he was getting busted every couple of years.
The ‘lsd dentist ‘ incident was with George john and their wives not all four; McCartney was reluctant and the last Beatle to try it
I didn’t say it was all four, Joseph. Most Beatle fans know this and understand tho context in which I said it.
I know they wrote like 50 songs while on their India retreat. Supposedly they weren't supposed to do drugs there and rather focus on meditation but I have a feeling they were loose with that rule. Can't confirm anything but they did write some really great stuff then but also consider how much the producer (George Martin) contributed and he certainly was no drug user.
The Beatles were definitely smoking pot in India, thankfully.
I’m always amazed at the utter unanalytical stupidity of so many claims in history. John: “I must have had a thousand LSD trips.”
OK, John first tried LSD in 1966, then he started to experiment with it seriously in late 1966. Assuming for arguments sake he took LSD, once a day, from August 28, 1966… 1000 trips later it would be about December 1, 1969. Really? He was on LSD for 2.7 years daily! This is the guy in 1969 that Paul and George Martin had to take up on the roof of Abby Road when he accidently took some LSD because he was terrified of it.
Let’s talk heroin… It was also really cool in 1970 to say you took heroin too, trying to be tough like the Stones and others. John and Yoko were dabblers; John was not Keith Richards or Brian Jones, or a later Kurt Cobain, an addict, a junkie. As the drug dealer for the Stones mentioned in his book in the 1980’s, he gave John and Yoko some small amounts of heroin to keep them happy, they were light weights, like children, trying to fit in with the hard core crowd. They were never junkies.
Yeah, Keith Richards said as much too, that John was a lightweight. Street cred in the early 70s meant getting busted, which is why that never hurt McCartney's image
Another great video. Many thanks~
Great Video again, love your channel, peace
I appreciate the comment - more to come.
Great interesting show and quality. Interesting that there had been numerous busts. I (like I suppose most) only knew of the "one time Paul ever spent the night away from his wife" and the lowlife musician hating and busting Officer Pilcher that John (and everyone) so despised.
I was thinking that on this channel had been earlier coverage of partaking on Her Majesty's rooftop; and (Paul?) feeling ill after one bad reaction either at the studio or a filmed interview; and George Martin's feelings (or feigned ignorance) about it and them and work.
GREAT video! I totally need to read this book! Thanks for the tip.
Thanks for the comment, Erik. If you decide to buy, please use the link in the description as I get a tiny commission on the sale.
A lot of musicians produced some great music on drugs and a lot of them produced self absorbed garbage on drugs also, so there is that.
Looking forward to reading the book📕. Thank you for the informative videos.
You're welcome, Ann. Thank you for watching.
Thanks, Matt, great video! I’d love to pick up that book. Ken Womack is a great Beatles author, as well as Robert Rodriguez; his book Revolver-How the Beatles Reimagined Rock n Roll is one of my favorites and actually got me to like Revolver, which I never really did until I read that book.
Thanks again for your great work on these videos!
Yes Rodriguez is someone I admire, still working on Womack. I appreciate the comment, Jilly.
I read this book a couple of years ago. No index, no primary research, and self-published. Oh dear, I thought. But it's excellent! A really interesting way in which to retell the familiar story. I finished it in pretty much one sitting. And I was interested to note that, at least according to this book, mushrooms play almost no role in the Beatles' drug history.
I think the impact of drugs on songwriting and performance including recording is overstated, you cannot record and perform anything of value or at all with drugs, sure drugs can help to play all night but the after affects means you pay for it, the only means to perform well is to be sober, on drugs musicians think they have played really well, many have said that drugs are not an aid to playing well for example 🇬🇧✌️🏴
Everything in moderation. ;)
I couldn’t agree with you more. I had a little experience with this subject many years ago. I seem to remember Jimi Hendrix saying the same in an interview I read years ago.
@@jimmyb1559 thankyou for that, take for example Grace Slick who missed many live performances due to her bing incapacitated! Also looks at the destruction of Syd Barrett ! Lemmy was thrown out of Hawkwind because of his massive incapacitating drug use, sadly I could go on 🇬🇧🤘
1) “Drugs” is an extremely broad term in our culture. I’d distinguish psychedelics from opiates, stimulants, alcohol, etc.
2) Re: Performing & recording, perhaps the impact is overstated. Stimulants keep you going & give tons of energy during live performances but i get it, it can inhibit as well.
However, the impact on songwriting is quite real IMO. LSD or mushrooms will absolutely change one’s worldview. Just compare pre-1965 Beatles songs to post-1965. Some can be attributed to personal and musical maturation, but IMO you don’t get the avant garde experimentation, crazy costumes, peace & love, and spiritual themes without “drugs”.
@@acslater017 Really good points.
As one who has been smoking weed and eating psychedelics for 50+ years, my view is that those drugs don't change you - they just awaken parts of you already there but dormant.
Daniel...absolutely 🎯
3 years ago I would do psychedelics several times, like 3 or 4 months apart from each heavy dose. I had breakthroughs, I swear.
I haven't done them in a year or so, dont really care to, but will if offered. I feel awakened in some ways, I know what you're talking about.
...I honestly don't care for weed, I turn it down a lot, but will smoke once or twice a year. Mushrooms and MDMA(Molly) is my jam😇😁
to each its own! but remember everything is best used in moderation!
@@joshkoh5143 absolutely...no doubt about that one bit!💯
RINGO AND PAUL RECENTLY STATED THAT THE EACH STILL MEDITATE, AND THAT TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION HAS HELPED THEIR LIVES.
Matt, Another engrossing episode.I have not seen substantive comments on transcendental meditation, but when i was initiated in 1973, rule number one was no more drugs. Of course alcohol was not included as a drug, so drinking was okay. Ideally, when the Beatles were in India, their drug use should have stopped. TM was supposed to be a technique to relieve stress, and it certainly worked for me. I did give it up five years later when the two persons who convinced me to start TM went to the maharishi Institute in Fairfield. Iowa where TM was imbibed more as a cult or religion.
As for drugs, they are not all the same. Some are physically addictive (psychedelics are not), but almost anything can be mentally addictive or just a habit. Lord knows, habits can be hard to break. Pot was generally less strong in the 60s (you got high, not stoned), but the scary results come from drugs like heroin and cocaine. Those two in particular are often 'cut' with baby powder or some other white powder. The result can be as bad an 18 year-old acquaintance 'trying' heroin once, only to get pure heroin and die from the overdose.
Sure drugs can be bad, but ignorance is worse.
Paul took LSD for the first time in late 1965 or early 1966 while staying with his friend Tara Browne in London. Browne was the wealthy Guinness heir who "blew his mind out in a car" in late 1966.
The same timeframe as Paul's moped accident?
Source?
I enjoyed the book but at the end of the day, it recounted stories I’ve read before in other Beatles books. It was almost like a micro history of various drugs and their influence on society and then the Beatles use of them (speed in Hamburg, Scotch n Coke, pot, LSD, heroin). The only revelation I read was that Paul took LSD in December of 1965.
Cheese and Onion....thanks for the great review. I'll be ordering a copy after watching this. Another great video.
I cannot remember the guy's name but he was apparently a major dealer to the British pop stars like Lennon, Keith Richard and Brian Jones to name a few. He wrote a book years ago and among other things claimed that John Lennon circa mid-late 1968 was so f'd up on dope that he thought for sure Lennon would soon be dead. Said he was as f'd up if not worse even than Brian Jones at the time. Don't know whether that's true or not but I do remember reading parts of the book this drug dealer wrote. Just wish I could remember the guy's name. I also remember reading that Derek Taylor had to actually remind Lennon what Beatles songs he had written due to his massive drugs intake.
Reminds me of the funny SNL skit with Fr Guido Sarducci interviewing Paul and Linda after being busted in Japan!
It might be worth noting that their time with the Maharishi did not end well, but both Paul and Ringo (not the two one might expect) remain practitioners of Transcendental Meditation, performing together for David Lynch's TM foundation and mentioning TM in interviews. I've not tried it myself, but I know a lot of people who swear by it.
Excellent review
None of that music from all those bands would have been the same without the drugs, it would have just ended up being pop music. Different times.
I feel out of all The Beatles, John’s drug use was the most prolific simply because he was self medicating his mental health problems. His childhood wasn’t exactly idyllic or even stable and this had a serious impact on him. I believe John never fully addressed or stopped his drug use. The closest he got was the primal scream therapy but the fact he didn’t follow through with its after effects only served to make the self medication even worse.
Good point, David. Most people don't realize that John needed another 6 months of Primal therapy according to Janov. The half treatment may have been worse than having none at all!
@@popgoesthe60s52 Exactly. Imagine stirring up all that trauma and instead of finishing the treatment, writing one of the greatest albums of all time instead.
True
Another great video! Thank you. So, it's fair to assume that Lennon spent the last 12 years of his life, except for some brief periods, as a heroin addict?
He seemed to go on and off heroin, so it's hard to say to what extent he used it, particularly from 1975-1980 when he was cloistered in the Dakota.
@@popgoesthe60s52 My recollection is that May Peng said that he was not on heroin during their time together in 1973-1974. But her strong inference was that he immediately returned to heroin upon reuniting with Ono in 1974.
@@ToadstoolShadow May Pang has a documentary coming out this week on her experience with John on his "Lost Weekend." I'm looking forward to Matt's take on it!
@@pennyparkin In one interview of Pang (can't remember where or when), she explicitly says that Lennon was off heroin during her relationship with him, but immediately went back on when he got back together with Ono.
Paul was on Jail for using pot en Japan he was 10 days in Jail, and he spent a lot of money in that time.